By baptism you place your children within the pale of the visible Church,and give them a right to all its privileges, the pastoral care of its ministers, and as far as their age and capacity will allow, the enjoyment of its ordinances and means of grace. These children are not offshoots of the Church, enjoying only a distant relation to it, but they are of it, as a fact; they are grafted into the body of Christ's disciples; they are partakers of an initiatory and provisional state of acceptance with God, and can forfeit their right to the fellowship of the saints only by a course of sin. Besides, when this sacred ordinance is regarded by parents in the spirit of prayer and faith, it cannot be unaccompanied by the divine blessing. Grace is connected with every institution of the Christian Church; and when children are constituted a part of the flock of Christ by being placed within the fold, they have a peculiar claim on the care of that good Shepherd who "gathereth the lambs with his arms and carries them in his bosom;" and they will receive instruction, spiritual influences, tender care, and the exercise of mercy, agreeing with the relation in which they stand to God. On these grounds we affectionately exhort you to place your beloved offspring within the "courts of the house of our God," and amongst the number of His family, by strictly attending to this divinely appointed ordinance of our Saviour.[142]
By baptism you place your children within the pale of the visible Church,and give them a right to all its privileges, the pastoral care of its ministers, and as far as their age and capacity will allow, the enjoyment of its ordinances and means of grace. These children are not offshoots of the Church, enjoying only a distant relation to it, but they are of it, as a fact; they are grafted into the body of Christ's disciples; they are partakers of an initiatory and provisional state of acceptance with God, and can forfeit their right to the fellowship of the saints only by a course of sin. Besides, when this sacred ordinance is regarded by parents in the spirit of prayer and faith, it cannot be unaccompanied by the divine blessing. Grace is connected with every institution of the Christian Church; and when children are constituted a part of the flock of Christ by being placed within the fold, they have a peculiar claim on the care of that good Shepherd who "gathereth the lambs with his arms and carries them in his bosom;" and they will receive instruction, spiritual influences, tender care, and the exercise of mercy, agreeing with the relation in which they stand to God. On these grounds we affectionately exhort you to place your beloved offspring within the "courts of the house of our God," and amongst the number of His family, by strictly attending to this divinely appointed ordinance of our Saviour.[142]
Dr. Ryerson's views were, therefore, the same in 1834 as they were in 1854—that by Baptism children stand in the relation of members of the Church, and should be enrolled in its registers, and entitled to its privileges, until they, by their own voluntary irregularity or neglect, forfeit them. The coincidence mentioned, and the consistency of the views expressed by Dr. Ryerson twenty years before, are very remarkable.
Now what are these solemn and affecting words of John Calvin, of Richard Watson, and of the British Conference, but a mockery and a snare, if the baptized children are not to be acknowledged and treated as members of the visible church of Christ? Ought not then children baptised by the Wesleyan ministry to be recognized and cared for as members of the Wesleyan Church? It is absurd, and leaves them in a state of religious orphanage, to say that they are members of the visible Church of Christ, but not members of any particular branch of it. As well might it be said, that the children born in Canada, are members of the Canadian family, but not members of any particular family in Canada. To be the former without being the latter, would indeed allow them a country, but would leavethem without a home, without a parent, without a protector, without an inheritance—homeless, houseless, destitute orphans. Is this the relation in which the baptized children of our people are to be viewed to the Church of their parents? In doing so, are not the most powerful considerations, motives and influences brought to bear upon both parents and children? In not doing so, is not the greatest wrong inflicted upon both, the ordinance of baptism virtually ignored, and its blessings lost? But in denying that any one is or can be a member of the Church except one who meets in class, are not the baptized children of our people refused a place within its pale? deprived of their baptismal birthright, before they are old enough to forfeit it by transgression? shut out from the family of God's people, and as practically unchurched as if they had never received a Christian name, in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost? I cannot reflect upon the subject or contemplate its consequences, without the deepest pain and solicitude. I will pursue it no further, but will leave it with you and those on whom the responsibility of deciding upon it devolves.
It will be remembered that I have never said anything as to the mode of receiving adult persons from without into the Church; nor as to the class of members who alone should be eligible to hold office in the Church; nor have I entertained the idea that any other than the scriptural summary of Christian morality contained in the General Rules of our Societies should be applied to all members of the Church, whether in full communion or not. Nor have I other than supposed that all persons recognized as a part of the Church, would, as far as circumstances can permit, be registered as classes, and called upon regularly by a leader or steward for their contributions in support of the ministry and other institutions of the Church, the same as persons meeting weekly in a class. What I have said applies wholly and exclusively to the Church relation and rights of the baptized children of our people, and to the rights of persons otherwise admitted into the Church, who, I believe, ought not to be excluded from it except for what would exclude them from the kingdom of grace and glory.
Anything appertaining to myself personally is unworthy of mention in such a connexion. I banish from my mind and heart the recollection and feeling of anything I consider to have been uncalled for and unjust towards myself on the part of others. Though I have resigned the ecclesiastical or outward authority to exercise the functions of the Christian ministry, I have never regarded myself as a secular man; I have felt, and do feel, and especially with improved health, the inward, and, I trust, divine conviction of duty to preach, as occasionmay offer and strength permit, the unsearchable riches of Christ to dying men. And if after the past publication and foregoing statement of my convictions on the point of Church Discipline and its administration, as affecting baptized children and other scripturally blameless members of the Church, and my purpose to maintain them on such occasions, and in such manner as are sanctioned by the Discipline, the Conference thinks it proper and desirable that I should resume my former relations to it and to the Church, I am willing to cancel my resignation, and to labour, as heretofore, to preach the doctrines and promote the agencies of the Church which I have sought by every earthly means in my power, though with conscious unfaithfulness before God, to advance during the last thirty years, and which are, I believe, according to the Scriptures, and calculated to promote the present and everlasting well-being of man.
The reading of this letter at the London Conference of 1855 led to a great deal of discussion and various explanations, which unfortunately afterwards resulted in much misunderstanding and recrimination. The Conference, however, with a unanimity and heartiness which reflected great credit for its calm judgment and Christian love of unity, passed the following resolution by a nearly two-thirds majority:—
That while this Conference declares its unaltered determination to maintain inviolate the position held respecting the views contained in Dr. Ryerson's communications of last year, and upon which his resignation was tendered and accepted; yet upon the application which the latter part of Dr. Ryerson's present communication contains, this Conference restores him to his former standing and relations to the Conference and the Church.
That while this Conference declares its unaltered determination to maintain inviolate the position held respecting the views contained in Dr. Ryerson's communications of last year, and upon which his resignation was tendered and accepted; yet upon the application which the latter part of Dr. Ryerson's present communication contains, this Conference restores him to his former standing and relations to the Conference and the Church.
After the resolution was passed, Dr. Ryerson went to the Conference at London, and in a letter which he wrote to me, dated January 9th, he said:—
My entrance into the Conference was cordially greeted. I was very affectionately welcomed and introduced by the President, Rev. Dr. Wood, after which I briefly addressed the Conference, and I have since taken the same part in the proceedings as heretofore.
After a long discussion yesterday, a very important change was made in the Discipline. By this change a minister may be stationed in the same circuit during five years, if requested by the quarterly meeting. A prominent member made a long and violent speech against it. I replied at length, and stated the general grounds on which I thought the change recommended by the Stationing Committee should be adopted. After the adoption of the resolution, I congratulated the Conference on this indication of progress in a direction to whatwas regarded as heretical when I first introduced the proposition five years ago. Some preacher said I was a little too soon. I said perhaps I had the misfortune of having been born a few years too soon. Another said that he supposed I expected that other changes would also follow. I replied, time would show. I was informed that all (even Messrs. Jeffers and Spencer) expressed a desire for my return to the Conference. The lengthened discussion was based upon certain parts of my letter to Mr. Wood, which it was held were not courteous, but a bearding of the Conference. On the other hand, it was contended that my sentiments even on the class-meeting condition of membership were the practice of those very preachers who objected to them. Examples were given, much to the surprise of certain parties, who professed to be the greatest sticklers on the subject. It was professed by all, without exception, that but for certain phrases in my letter (to the sentiments of which, it was maintained, the Conference would be committed by the resolution proposed) the vote in regard to me would have been unanimous.
Amongst other congratulatory letters received by Dr. Ryerson, none were more gratifying to him than the following characteristic letter from Rev. John Black, in township of Rawdon, written on the 16th of June:—
My good Mr. Lever, of Sidney, in a letter from the Conference, informs me that "Dr. Ryerson is once more among his brethren, and, as usual, taking an active part in the affairs of Conference." Although three of my children were confined to bed by sickness, yet on hearing such news I was almost ready for a shout.Permit me to say that your departure from us at Belleville, twelve months ago, lay heavy on my heart; and now to hear the above intelligence is good to my soul. For many years I have been much attached to Mr. Egerton Ryerson. We were "taken on trial" at the same time, and together were ordained to the great work of the ministry. And although you, Mr. R., have been near the head, and I, Mr. B., near the foot, yet we are in the same ranks, fighting the battles of the Lord, and exercising our talents in behalf of truth and righteousness. I know that your time is precious, yet I believe you will spare a minute or two in reading a few lines from your affectionate, and now almost worn-out, friend and well-wisher. Long may you live for the purpose of using your talents for the benefit of Church and State! This fervent wish stands at a distance from mere compliment and from flattery, and is the free emotion of a Methodist heart.
My good Mr. Lever, of Sidney, in a letter from the Conference, informs me that "Dr. Ryerson is once more among his brethren, and, as usual, taking an active part in the affairs of Conference." Although three of my children were confined to bed by sickness, yet on hearing such news I was almost ready for a shout.
Permit me to say that your departure from us at Belleville, twelve months ago, lay heavy on my heart; and now to hear the above intelligence is good to my soul. For many years I have been much attached to Mr. Egerton Ryerson. We were "taken on trial" at the same time, and together were ordained to the great work of the ministry. And although you, Mr. R., have been near the head, and I, Mr. B., near the foot, yet we are in the same ranks, fighting the battles of the Lord, and exercising our talents in behalf of truth and righteousness. I know that your time is precious, yet I believe you will spare a minute or two in reading a few lines from your affectionate, and now almost worn-out, friend and well-wisher. Long may you live for the purpose of using your talents for the benefit of Church and State! This fervent wish stands at a distance from mere compliment and from flattery, and is the free emotion of a Methodist heart.
FOOTNOTES:[142]As early as 1834, Dr. Ryerson was deeply impressed with the correctness of these views. Having, in the Guardian of the 9th of April, 1834, called the attention of his ministerial brethren to the pressing duty of giving effect to the section of the Discipline on the "Instruction of Children," he proceeded to point out in the Guardian of the 23rd of that month, the privileges which baptism confers upon Methodist children, fortifying his views by the following quotation from Rev. R. Watson's Institutes:—Baptism introduces the adult believer into the covenant of Grace, and the Church of Christ.... To the infant child it is a visible reception into the same covenant and Church.... In a word, it is both to infants and adults a sign and pledge of that inward grace, which has respect to and flows from a covenant relation to each of the three persons, in whose one name they are baptized—acceptance with Christ as the Head of His mystical body, the Church, and of communion of the Holy Ghost.
[142]As early as 1834, Dr. Ryerson was deeply impressed with the correctness of these views. Having, in the Guardian of the 9th of April, 1834, called the attention of his ministerial brethren to the pressing duty of giving effect to the section of the Discipline on the "Instruction of Children," he proceeded to point out in the Guardian of the 23rd of that month, the privileges which baptism confers upon Methodist children, fortifying his views by the following quotation from Rev. R. Watson's Institutes:—Baptism introduces the adult believer into the covenant of Grace, and the Church of Christ.... To the infant child it is a visible reception into the same covenant and Church.... In a word, it is both to infants and adults a sign and pledge of that inward grace, which has respect to and flows from a covenant relation to each of the three persons, in whose one name they are baptized—acceptance with Christ as the Head of His mystical body, the Church, and of communion of the Holy Ghost.
[142]As early as 1834, Dr. Ryerson was deeply impressed with the correctness of these views. Having, in the Guardian of the 9th of April, 1834, called the attention of his ministerial brethren to the pressing duty of giving effect to the section of the Discipline on the "Instruction of Children," he proceeded to point out in the Guardian of the 23rd of that month, the privileges which baptism confers upon Methodist children, fortifying his views by the following quotation from Rev. R. Watson's Institutes:—Baptism introduces the adult believer into the covenant of Grace, and the Church of Christ.... To the infant child it is a visible reception into the same covenant and Church.... In a word, it is both to infants and adults a sign and pledge of that inward grace, which has respect to and flows from a covenant relation to each of the three persons, in whose one name they are baptized—acceptance with Christ as the Head of His mystical body, the Church, and of communion of the Holy Ghost.
1855-1858.
Personal Episode in the Class-Meeting Discussion.
I have already referred to the character of the discussion which resulted in Dr. Ryerson's restoration to the Conference. In the heat of that discussion some things may have been said by Dr. Ryerson's friends which were not warranted by the terms of his letter of the 26th of May; or what was said may have been construed (designedly or otherwise) into an admission of assurance on Dr. Ryerson's part that he would cease to agitate the question, or that he would hold his opinions in abeyance.
The discussion on the Class-meeting question was the chief event in the proceedings of the Wesleyan Conference of 1855. Yet not the slightest reference to the subject, or to Dr. Ryerson's return to the Conference was made in the report of the proceedings which were published in theGuardianof the 13th and 20th of June in that year. It was not until some time after the adjournment of the Conference, and the departure of Dr. Ryerson for Europe, that the subject was mentioned in that paper, and what did appear was apparently an afterthought.[143]
After Dr. Ryerson had gone, an editorial appeared in theGuardianof the 27th of June from which the following is an extract:—
We did not notice in our summary account of the proceedings of the Conference the return of Dr. Ryerson to his former position with that body, but as erroneous statements have appeared in the paper respecting it we think proper to give the facts of the case.A short time previous to the sitting of the Conference Dr. Ryerson addressed a letter to the President, in which he stated that his views remained unaltered respecting the points of difference between himself and the Conference; he expressed a desire to resume his ministerial duties in the Church. The communication was accompanied with a verbal assurance that his own peculiar views on the questions at issue would be held in abeyance in deference to the determination of the Conference to maintain inviolate those parts of the Wesleyan Discipline to which his communication referred. This was the position in which the application of Dr. Ryerson was presented to the Conference, and, after a somewhat animated discussion on the subject, the resolution [for his re-admission] was adopted by nearly a two-thirds majority.
We did not notice in our summary account of the proceedings of the Conference the return of Dr. Ryerson to his former position with that body, but as erroneous statements have appeared in the paper respecting it we think proper to give the facts of the case.
A short time previous to the sitting of the Conference Dr. Ryerson addressed a letter to the President, in which he stated that his views remained unaltered respecting the points of difference between himself and the Conference; he expressed a desire to resume his ministerial duties in the Church. The communication was accompanied with a verbal assurance that his own peculiar views on the questions at issue would be held in abeyance in deference to the determination of the Conference to maintain inviolate those parts of the Wesleyan Discipline to which his communication referred. This was the position in which the application of Dr. Ryerson was presented to the Conference, and, after a somewhat animated discussion on the subject, the resolution [for his re-admission] was adopted by nearly a two-thirds majority.
Immediately on the publication of this article, I sent it to Dr. Ryerson at Boston, where he was about to take the steamer for England. He at once replied to the Editor, and sent the letter to me for insertion in theGuardian. In his private note to me, dated 3rd July, he said:—
I think theGuardian'sstatement is the most shameful attack that was ever made upon me—one that I did not expect even from him—one that I would not have believed had I not seen it. What may be the end of this affair, I cannot yet see. But I am satisfied in my own conscience as to the course I have pursued, and as to my present duty. As to rescinding the clause of the Discipline relating to the exclusion of persons for not attending class-meetings, no determination was expressed to enforce it. On the contrary, it was declared to be a dead letter in many places. What I maintained was, that the practice and the rule should be in harmony. You will see what I have said to the Editor of theGuardianin a private note.Remember me affectionately to all; and may Almighty God prosper you in your educational work during my absence.
I think theGuardian'sstatement is the most shameful attack that was ever made upon me—one that I did not expect even from him—one that I would not have believed had I not seen it. What may be the end of this affair, I cannot yet see. But I am satisfied in my own conscience as to the course I have pursued, and as to my present duty. As to rescinding the clause of the Discipline relating to the exclusion of persons for not attending class-meetings, no determination was expressed to enforce it. On the contrary, it was declared to be a dead letter in many places. What I maintained was, that the practice and the rule should be in harmony. You will see what I have said to the Editor of theGuardianin a private note.
Remember me affectionately to all; and may Almighty God prosper you in your educational work during my absence.
The following is a copy of the private letter to Rev. J. Spencer, which accompanied Dr. Ryerson's reply to the editorial:
I was not a little surprised and pained at your unfair and unjust statement respecting me, and especially after what passed on my leaving the Conference, and your careful silence on the subject until I had left home, and would not therefore be likely to have it in my power to furnish an antidote until your injurious statement had accomplished its object as far as possible. But I am thankful that, through the prompt kindness of Mr. Hodgins, and by that means alone, I have been furnished with a copy of theGuardianin time to write a hasty reply before embarking for the other side of the Atlantic. I have requested Mr. Hodgins to take a copy of my communication to you, as I have not time to transcribe it. You can as easily command my letter to the President of the Conference as you did the resolution of the Conference. I ask for no indulgence or favour; I ask for nothing but truth and justice.
I will thank you to inform Mr. Hodgins as early as possible as to whether you intend to perpetuate the wrong you have done me, by refusing to insert my letter to the President of the Conference, and the note I have this evening addressed to you in reference to your statement. I wish Mr. Hodgins to inform me of the result by the next mail to England, and also to act otherwise by me as I would by him in like circumstances.[144]
Having got Dr. Ryerson's reply to theGuardian'sattack of 27th June, inserted in the Toronto city papers, I wrote to him to that effect. His reply is dated, London (Eng.,) 3rd August:—I thank you sincerely for the pains you have taken in regard to my letter to theGuardian. I am thankful that, by your zeal and good management, the Methodist body, as well as the public at large, will have an opportunity of learning my own views from my own pen; but considering the intended courseof theGuardian, and what he alleges to be the feelings of many others, I have great doubts whether I can be of any use to the Wesleyan body, or of much use to the interests of religion in connection with the Conference, and that I shall rather embarrass, and be a burden to my friends in the Conference, than be a help to them. My only wish and aim as a minister is, to preach the evangelical doctrines I have always proclaimed, and which are preached with power by many clergymen of the Church of England and Presbyterian Churches, and often more forcibly, than by many Methodist ministers.
I confess, from what you state, I see no prospect of effecting the changes in the relation and privileges of baptized children, and the test of membership in the Methodist Church, which I believe to be required by the Scriptures, and by consistency. I apprehend that anything proposed by me on these subjects will be made the occasion of violent attacks and agitation, and that personal hostility to me will be made a sort of test of orthodoxy among a large party in the Conference and in the Church—thus exposing my friends to much unpleasantness and disadvantage on my account, and reducing, if not extinguishing, all opportunities on my part to preach, as I should be (as in times past) wholly dependent upon the invitations of others.
From this incident a private and confidential correspondence on the subject was maintained for months between Dr. Ryerson in Europe and myself, in Canada.
It was clear to my mind at the time that the Editor took an unfair advantage of Dr. Ryerson's absence from the country to injure (as he supposed) his brother in the ministry. In this he was mistaken; and, in his chagrin, he attacked me personally in theGuardianfor my zeal on behalf of Dr. Ryerson. Events proved that my interposition was opportune and just; and that, had I not done so, the Methodist people would have been improperly and cruelly misled, and irreparable injustice would have been done to the character and motives of a noble and generous man, who, in this instance, ought not to have been held responsible for the utterances of warm hearts, but of possibly indiscreet tongues.
I speak advisedly when I say that I understood perfectly well the two men with whom I had to deal. Rev. James Spencer was well known to me, when I was a student at Victoria College forty years ago. He was a good man, no doubt; but no student at that College ever thought of comparing him with the Principal of the College. How he ever got to be Editor of theGuardianwas always a mystery to me. I never had the slightest difference with him—quite the reverse; butno comparison could be instituted between James Spencer and Egerton Ryerson.
In this matter I had no personal feeling. Both men were Methodists, while I am an Episcopalian, and both have gone to their final account. Moreover, the question was not one of doctrine, or of denominational preference. It was one of simple justice and fair play between man and man. Hence, I took the earliest opportunity of apprising Dr. Ryerson of the unjust and anomalous position in which he had been placed by the Editor of theGuardian.
The following private letters were successively received by me from Dr. Ryerson while he was in Europe:—
Paris, 23rd August.—I enclose my answer to Rev. James Spencer. I wish you would have it inserted in theGlobeandColonist. As you are acquainted with all the circumstances in Canada, being on the spot, if you think it best to abridge, omit, or modify the words of any part of my communication, I would wish you to do so. Whatever course I may think it my duty to pursue in future, I wish in this communication to preserve that tone of remark which can give no offence to any minister or member of the Wesleyan Church. I will not be the offending party, and the responsibility of a wider breach between the Conference and myself will not be with me. What course duty may require me to pursue, I still leave to the direction of Infinite Wisdom, and to future consideration....
The Queen is in Paris this week, during which all business in my way seems to be suspended. She is received with great enthusiasm. We have seen her and the Emperor two or three times.
Paris, 30th August.—Rev. Dr. Wood's denial of my having given him any pledge, or any thing that would be so construed, is full and decided, and if my brother John says anything at all, it will be, I have no doubt, less than I have stated in my letter. But still the main question of my position in the Conference is unaffected by these disclaimers. It appears from Mr. Spencer's statement (in which he seems to be sustained by others) that the terms of my letter were not acted upon or complied with by the Conference, but that the Conference acted upon a verbal assurance that I never made, or authorized. The simplest and most natural way for me to act, is, to withdraw my letter on these grounds, and to decline availing myself of, or recognizing an act of, the Conference based upon what I never proposed or authorized. Thus the responsibility of this irregular and absurd proceeding will rest with others, and I will stand, in the maintenance of all that I have stated and done,with the advantage of having acted a most conciliatory part. But what I shall do must not be decided upon hastily, as I act for life, and finally. If it ultimately appears to me, as it does at present, that there is no consistent or justifiable ground on which I can remain a member of the Conference, it will then be for me to consider whether I can occupy the position of a layman, or enter the ministry of some other section of the Christian Church. I would like to have your own impressions and views on this point, in reference to my future standing and usefulness in Canada.
Paris, 20th September.—In my reply to Mr. Spencer I did not allude to the cases of Montreal and Quebec. Perhaps the disclaimer which has been adopted by quarterly meetings in those places may require from me a remark or two. What I said was founded upon what was told me on reliable authority that no preacher had enforced, or dare enforce, the rule. I understand the same at Quebec. I have been assured, and I have no doubt the enquiry will establish the fact, that there are men, trustees of the Churches, in either or both Montreal or Quebec, who do not meet in class, and whose names are not, and I think whose names never have been, on any class book. But I think the natural and necessary effect of the whole is, to terminate my connection with the Methodist Church. I still remain undecided; but I see no other course on the ground of consistency, propriety, or duty, as well as of religious enjoyment. But this is only to yourself. The remaining question will be whether I should remain a private member of a Church, or enter another Church. On this point I am quite undecided. May I be divinely directed!
In a further letter directed to me from Paris in September, 1855, Dr. Ryerson discussed the whole question at issue. After pointing out the unfair conduct of the Editor of theGuardianin attacking and misrepresenting a member of the Conference, and then saying that his columns were closed against any further discussion of the subject, Dr. Ryerson said:—The Editor of theGuardianand others represent me as hostile to class-meetings. This may do injury, in the estimation of some persons, to a means of religious edification which I regard as one of the most efficient human agencies for promoting spiritual-mindedness among religious people. The responsibility of such a proceeding is with themselves. The Editor of theGuardianrepresents this as a matter of dispute between the Conference and myself. This is wholly incorrect. The resolution of the Conference is avowedly based upon my letter, and upon that alone. That record cannot be falsified. The variation between the wording of the resolution of the Conference and the latterpart of my letter referred to in it, is not of the slightest consequence. The acts of the Conference, as well as of the Legislature, are to be judged of, not by what may have been said by individual members in the course of discussion, but by its attested records and official papers.
Now with the same truth and propriety that my assailants charge me with having written against class-meetings, might I charge them with being opposed to prayer-meetings and love-feasts, and even the Lord's Supper, because they do not make the observance of all or of any one of these institutions (though the latter is expressly instituted by our Lord himself), a condition of membership in the Church of God. Because I have avowed my long-settled conviction that class-meetings ought not to be exalted above all the other ordinances and institutions of religion—giving as an authority the words of John Wesley himself—am I to be charged with having written against class-meeting? So far from having written against these meetings, I have expressed myself in the strongest terms in their favour; and I repeat that, after the public preaching of the Word, and the Lord's Supper, I believe class-meetings have been the most efficient means of promoting personal and vital piety among the members of the Wesleyan Societies.
Yet I am not insensible to the fact that Mr. Wesley found the prototype of this kind of religious exercises, not in any institution or practice of the Primitive Church for fifteen hundred years, but in a society of Monks calledLa Trappe, whose ardent piety Mr. Wesley greatly admired, the lives of some of whose members (such as the Marquis de Renty, etc.,) he wrote, and whose manual of piety (Imitation of Jesus Christ) he translated and abridged, for the use of his own Societies, and several of whose questions in conducting what may be called their weekly band or class-meetings, Mr. Wesley adopted, translated and modified, for conducting his own meetings of a similar character. These weekly exercises in the Societé de la Trappe were eminently instrumental in reforming, and kindling the name of devotional piety among its members; and Mr. Wesley found them equally useful among the members of his own Societies, and so they have continued till the present time. But will any Wesleyan minister in England or Canada—will any man of intelligence and honesty—venture to assert that Mr. Wesley ever intended that attendance at such weekly exercises should be an essential condition and fundamental test of membership in the visible Church of God? Will any one assert, or can he believe, that Mr. Wesley ever could have anticipated, or supposed, that such an application would, or could, be made of an institution which he expressly stated to be "merely prudential, not essential,not of divine origin?" But I am again met with the charge, on another ground, of having departed from Mr. Wesley. It is said, in substance: "Mr. Wesley has committed class-meeting to us as a trust; it is not for us to inquire into the origin of the institution; it is our duty to maintain inviolably the trust committed to us—which trust Dr. Ryerson has violated." In reply, I remark that the statement of the question itself is fallacious, and the charge groundless. In the first place, the question assumes, what is contrary to fact, that Mr. Wesley instituted and committed the trust of class-meetings as a condition of membership in the visible Church of God, whereas he instituted and transmitted it as a means of grace among the members of a private society in a church. In the next place, the trust of class-meetings was only one part of a system which Mr. Wesley committed as a trust to his followers. The one part of that trust was as sacred as another, and the connection of one part with another is essential to the fulfilment of the obligation. Now one part of Mr. Wesley's trust, and that on which he insists ten times more voluminously and vehemently than he ever spoke of class-meetings, was that his followers should attend the services of the Church of England, should receive the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper in it, should abide in the Church of England, and that whenever they separated from the Church of England they separated from him. These are so many trusts that Mr. Wesley committed to his followers in England, and on which he insisted as tests of membership in his Society; and in connection with these trusts, he committed the trust of class-meetings—"as the observance and practice of members of a private society in the Church of England." Have Dr. Bunting and others, who charge me with being anti-Wesleyan, fulfilled these trusts committed to them by Mr. Wesley? Have they not wholly separated from the Church of England—ordaining their own ministers, administering the ordinances, claiming and exercising all the attributes of a Church, as much as the authorities of the Church of England herself. And while Mr. Wesley disclaimed exercising the office of excommunicating Church members, and denied that admission into or exclusion from his Societies was admission into or exclusion from the visible Church of Christ, my accusers exercise this authority in the highest degree—confessedly and avowedly admitting into and excluding persons from the visible Church, and making the attendance at class-meeting a test of Church-membership—which Mr. Wesley never believed, much less authorized. I leave it, therefore, to the judgment of every man of common sense to say whether there is the shadow of a reason for the pretensions and charges of my assailants. I amnot surprised that Dr. Bunting and others should feel sensitive on the class-meeting test of church-membership, as it so enormously increases clerical power—the ruling idea of Dr. Bunting's legislation throughout his whole life. It virtually places the membership of each member in the hands of the minister. The quarterly class ticket, signed by the minister, is the only proof and title of membership for each member. If the minister withholds this (and he may be prompted to do so on many grounds, personal and others, irrespective of any suspicion, much less charge, against the moral or religious character of the member) the member is deprived of his membership, and this I believe has occurred in more than twenty thousand instances, in England, during the last six years, during which period the connection has experienced the lamentable and unprecedented loss of nearly a hundred thousand members, the fruits of the labours of an age.
London, 5th October.—I know that my brother John was not pleased with my letter to Mr. Wood, read in the Conference. He told me so on the way to the Conference; he wished me to write a short letter, couched in general terms, and that the affair might be passed over in the Conference as quietly as possible—believing that to be the best way to accomplish the object I had in view. In this I could not agree with him, and stated that unless received in the terms of my letter, I did not wish to be received at all; nor did I wish the letter read if any opposition were apprehended. What has transpired shows, I think very clearly, that had I not been as explicit as I have, I should have been more grossly misrepresented, and with some degree of plausibility. I am exceedingly glad that I wrote as I did. It has removed all uncertainty on the subject. There can now be no mistake or misunderstanding. I do not think my friends have been frank with me in not telling me all that has transpired in the Conference. But it is not worth while to refer to these things now. The question is settled. I shall write to Dr. Beecham on the subject of the remarks reported to have been made in reference to me by Dr. Bunting and Mr. Methley, in the English Conference, and respecting my settled and avowed convictions and position—affording him an opportunity of stating how far he and others think such views are consistent with the relations I sustain to the Wesleyan Body. I shall also advert to the propriety of such men as Mr. Methley, or any member of the English Conference, assuming to exercise a censorship over the character of any members of the Canada Conference. After receiving Dr. Beecham's answer, I shall finally decide as to my future course. I look upon my connection with the Wesleyan body as virtually terminated. I havenot been in one of their chapels, or seen one of their ministers, since I left America. On seeing, at Boston, what Mr. Spencer had written, and what was likely to occur, I thought I would keep myself entirely aloof until the final issue of the whole affair.
London, 10th October.—I wrote you on the 5th inst., under the influence of strong and indignant feelings. But I have since calmly, and with much prayer and many tears, for days considered the whole matter of Church relations. I have resolved to stand my ground in my present position, and fight out the battle with my assailants.
In a letter to me, written a few days afterwards, Dr. Ryerson thus states the conclusion which he had come to in regard to his remaining in the Methodist Church. He said:—Last Sunday I heard a very powerful sermon from Dr. Cumming on, "No man liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself;" and I resolved, by meditation and prayer, to come to a conclusion on the subject of my Church relations, and future course. I walked, and wept, and prayed over the subject from seven till twelve o'clock last night, and the conclusion at which I have now arrived is to stand in my present position and relation, and maintain my views, and let my opponents do their worst, and thrust me out if they will or can. If I lived to myself, that is, if I consulted my taste, feelings, personal comforts, and enjoyments, I could not remain in the Methodist Church a week; I have more views and sympathies with the evangelical clergy and members of any Protestant church than I have with such men as Mr. Spencer. But still I have, in the Providence of God, been called to labour in connection with the Methodist Church, and have been prospered in it; and I think, all things considered, I can do more good to stand my ground. If I do nothing else than secure to Methodist children and youth the recognition of their rights and privileges, and the appropriate religious instruction and care, that point alone will involve more good in the end than all I could do in any other section of the Christian Church. If Methodist pulpits should be closed against me, others will be opened to me in abundance.
Paris, 18th October.—I feel very happy in my own mind since I have finally decided upon my future course, and which, I have no doubt you will think with me, is, under all the circumstances, the best that I could take. After the course which has been pursued towards me, I shall be free from all restraints on the matters respecting which they hoped to impose silence. I shall make the James Methleys, and the James Spencers, of both the English and Canadian Conferences, feel very uncomfortable, while I think I shall secure the respect and sympathiesof various religious persuasions and parties in Canada, and the ultimate accomplishment of the great and divine end I have had in view. Mr. Spencer's remarks that you enclosed are very weak and flat—more so than I expected. He speaks of a difference between the Conference and me. The difference is between him and his abettors (as individuals) and me, not between the Conference and me. The Conference has avowedly based its proceedings upon my letter—which is all I care for since my letter is published. If the terms of the resolution of the Conference are not in harmony with the terms of my letter, that is of no consequence to me now—it is for the judgment or taste of those who wrote it. I am glad to hear that my remarks on Mr. Spencer are favourably received by all my friends. Mr. Malcolm Cameron has said that if I never wrote another word on the subject I had mooted, or were I even to leave the Body, the subject would not sleep—it would be taken up by others—it could not sleep—and their attacking me, and I defending myself, was, in effect, discussing the question in the most telling manner.
Paris, 8th November.—I am glad to learn that at that period when I was undecided, you entertained the views as to my relations and future course which I have at length decided to maintain and pursue. I will stand my ground and battle the affair with my adversaries, on both sides of the Atlantic, to the last. In order to exclude me from the Conference they must now bring charges against me; and, in attempting this, they will raise a difficulty such as they have never yet encountered, and will invest the whole question with an interest and importance that they little dream of. Indeed, they have done so already.
Paris, 14th November.—I am happy to learn that you also entirely concur in the course I have decided to pursue. I care not a fig for all that the parties to whom you refer may do or try to do. I have not a shadow of doubt as to the result. It is most strange that rashness should be attributed to you in the matter. It was the course best calculated to defeat the objects they wish to counteract. I do not think my letters would have appeared at all in theGuardianhad you not pressed the matter as you did; and had I not taken the course I did at Belleville, the questions could not have been brought before the body as they can and must. I have written a reply to theGuardian—it contains sixteen pages of letter paper. But after your suggestion, I will keep it another week, and may, perhaps, substitute for it a note making my acknowledgements to the daily press of Toronto, and stating my position and intended course of proceedings. I think something of this kind may be best to counteract the misrepresentations which they are no doubt industriouslycirculating. Possibly I may not say anything at all, as you suggest.
Paris, 29th November.—I cannot but smile at the pamphlet on the Class-meeting question, after it had been declared as the determination of the Conference that the subject of my letters was not to be agitated. I could not be more effectually aided in what I would wish to see accomplished than by such a publication, as it will afford me an opportunity to re-consider the subject, and to say what I please on the general subject, and expose every petty sophism and absurdity of my opponents, and to show what are really the rights of the members of the Church in more senses than one. The strength of the opposite side of the question is silence and Conference authority; the strength of my side is discussion. For one on the opposite side to write and publish a pamphlet is to give up Conference authority, and to come upon the ground of reason and Scripture. It is also an abandonment of the pretence that the question is not a debatable or open one. There being several writers on one side and only one on the other, gives the latter an advantage. He can point out the variations and weak points of the former, illustrating the criteria of error and truth. The whole will afford me an opportunity to deal with general principles, and curiosity and enquiry will be attached to what I can say in reply to such efforts to prove me heretical. I look upon all such occurrences as the ways of Providence to open the way of truth and righteousness.
Dr. Ryerson returned to Canada in time to attend the Conference at Brockville. While there he wrote to me, on the 6th of June, 1856:—Mr. Spencer has given me notice that, as I have denied and repudiated the terms upon which I had been re-admitted into the Conference, when my name comes up in the examination of character, it will be moved that the resolution re-admitting me into the Conference be rescinded. I am glad of this. It will afford me an opportunity of exposing the conduct of my assailants, and of entering into the whole question. To-day the subject of class-meetings came up, by a philippic on the subject by one of the ministers, in connection with the return of members, and the manner of administering the Discipline. I at once accepted the challenge—reiterated my sentiments, and stated when the time came I should be prepared to show that they were founded on the Scriptures, the primitive Church, the Fathers of the Protestant Reformation, and such men as Baxter and Howe, down to the present time. What I said seemed to be favourably received by a considerable portion of the Conference. I think the Spencer clique (and it is only a clique) will be disappointed greatlywhen the affair comes up. I feel that I stand upon the Rock of Truth. I would that my soul were more fully baptized with the Spirit of the Truth, the principles of which I maintain.
On the 9th of June, he also wrote as follows:—This afternoon, on my name being called, Rev. J. Borland moved, seconded by Rev. W. Jeffers, the following resolution:—
Resolved, That as Dr. Ryerson has denied the authority of the verbal assurances given in his behalf at the Conference in London, and repudiated the basis upon which the resolution restoring him to his former standing in the Conference was founded; therefore, all that part of the said resolution which relates to his re-admission be, and is hereby, rescinded.
Resolved, That as Dr. Ryerson has denied the authority of the verbal assurances given in his behalf at the Conference in London, and repudiated the basis upon which the resolution restoring him to his former standing in the Conference was founded; therefore, all that part of the said resolution which relates to his re-admission be, and is hereby, rescinded.
When the President came to the question as to the examination of character, he observed that that question was always considered with closed doors, and intimated to strangers to withdraw. I arose at once, and said that as far as I was concerned, notice had been given to me of a resolution to exclude me from the Conference, and that upon the ground of what had appeared in the public papers—that I had been misrepresented and maligned in the official organ of the Conference—in professed reports of what had taken place in the Conference, and I demanded, as a matter of right and equity, that the proceedings of the Conference should be public as far as I was concerned. A discussion then took place in regard to reporting. I at length moved an amendment that the proceedings of the Conference should be public as far as I was concerned. This was adopted by a large majority, though voted against by the whole clique hostile to me. Several of them made speeches against me. My brother John, Rev. E. Wood, Rev. R. Jones, Dr. Green, as well as others, stated what was said as to my pledge, just what I had supposed and intended; and my brother John made a most powerful speech, and scathed Mr. Spencer and others. His references to me were warmly cheered by an evident majority of the Conference. The cheers to the remarks maligning me seemed to be made by about fifteen or twenty—many less than I had supposed. I have no doubt they will be defeated by a very large majority. When the hour of adjournment arrived, the President asked me if I wished to make any remarks; I stated to the Conference I was willing to give my assailants the advantage of leaving their strong statements and attacks unrefuted and unnoticed until Monday morning. A large number of persons were present, and a strong popular feeling seemed to be excited in my favour. My opponents have themselves in the very position in which I have desired to get them, and I shall now have the best possible opportunity of exposing them.
At the request of the friends here, I have consented to preachto-morrow evening, notwithstanding the opposition of the preachers hostile to me. I feel as if God the Lord would help me on this occasion, notwithstanding my unfaithfulness and unworthiness; He has never failed me in such an extremity.
On the following Monday Dr. Ryerson's case was brought up for discussion. Rev. J. Borland made a strong appeal on behalf of his resolution. TheCanadian Independent, of July 16th, in speaking of the debate said:—
Mr. Borland had not spoken long in support of this before he was interrupted by Rev. Dr. Wood, the President, who made this most important declaration, that—
He gave no verbal assurance for, or in behalf of Dr. Ryerson; that he received no such assurance from him; that the document he received from Dr. Ryerson was laid on the table, and read before the Conference, unaccompanied by any verbal statements or assurances of any kind from him.
He gave no verbal assurance for, or in behalf of Dr. Ryerson; that he received no such assurance from him; that the document he received from Dr. Ryerson was laid on the table, and read before the Conference, unaccompanied by any verbal statements or assurances of any kind from him.
This he afterwards repeated, when Rev. J. Spencer, the Editor of theGuardian, re-asserted the giving of such assurances. The co-delegate, Rev. J. Ryerson, also said that—